Re: apt-get install aspell fails?
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:51:50PM -0500 or thereabouts, Michael B Allen wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:23:57PM -0500 or thereabouts, Michael B Allen wrote:
> >> > We're trying to help you, but some people just will not read. Why do you
> >> > need a backport? Becasue there isn't a package for Woody, well DUH!
> >> >
> >> > I told you to get a backport, there is a Aspell backport for Woody. I
> >> > told you how to find it yesterday. For spoonfeeding, here you go:
> >>
> >> So basically your stance is "breaking dependencies is ok because you can just go
> >> and dig up an alternative package from mysteryserver.org". I'm a bit concerned
> >> by
> >> your insistance that this problem is due to ignorance on my part. Or perhaps
> >> you've had this conversation a few times already and you're trying to justify
> >> your
> >> own misguided beliefs.
> >
> > Listen I'm walking the walk -- if you want to install Aspell and keep
> > Woody, you have no choice. There are no broken dependencies if you use a
> > backport, that's what a backport is all about. If you're unsure as to
> > what you're getting, don't do it. It's really quite simple.
> >
> > I've done this for two packages. Aspell and mutt, while running Woody.
>
> You know I moved to Debian because I started to patch my RH 7.3 system with
> rebuilt glibc 2.2 rpms from their glibc 2.3 source rpms. That was the only way to
> get an up-to-date system. I thought Debian would take greater care in maintaining
> a working up-to-date system for the long term. Listening to you say "if you want
> to install Aspell and keep Woody, you have no choice" confirms my fear that this
> is not the case.
With Debian you have choice. If you wish a cutting edge system use Unstable (Sarge),
or one less cutting edge use Testing (Sid). If you insist on wanting
a new version of Aspell that's not in Stable, while using Stable, then
you have to use a backport. You're spouting off, without understanding Debian.
Three e-mail later, you're still _just not getting it_.
Whatever... and btw the previous two messages were sent to you
*privately*. Watch where you post in the future. I have lost patience
with you.
--
Stephen
Reply to: